Rodriguez v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. (Jacobi Medical Center)

78 A.D.3d 538, 911 N.Y.S.2d 347
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 18, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 78 A.D.3d 538 (Rodriguez v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. (Jacobi Medical Center)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rodriguez v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. (Jacobi Medical Center), 78 A.D.3d 538, 911 N.Y.S.2d 347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered January 8, 2008, which granted plaintiffs motion to serve a late notice of claim, unanimously reversed, on the facts, without costs, and the motion denied.

None of the factors that the motion court considered were demonstrated to be in plaintiffs favor (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). Plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse for the eight-year delay in moving for leave. The record shows that the delay is attributable to the fact that plaintiffs mother and guardian, while on notice of his condition, lacked an understanding of the legal basis for the claim. However, such ignorance of the law is not a reasonable excuse (Bayo v Burnside Mews Assoc., 45 AD3d 495 [2007]). Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that [539]*539defendant acquired actual notice of the facts of the claim from the medical record. He was born prematurely, and the complications he suffered were consistent with that condition. The record alone did not put defendant on notice of alleged malpractice that might years later give rise to another condition (see Velazquez v City of N.Y. Health & Hosps. Corp. [Jacobi Med. Ctr.], 69 AD3d 441 [2010]). Defendant demonstrated that it has been prejudiced by the delay by showing that its former-employee witnesses have no recollection of this particular delivery, performed almost a decade ago (see Matter of Banegas-Nobles v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 184 AD2d 379, 379-380 [1992]). Finally, plaintiffs infancy carries little weight, because there is no connection between the infancy and the delay (see Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 537-538 [2006]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cassidy v. New York City Tr. Auth.
2024 NY Slip Op 31145(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
La Marca v. MTA Bus Co.
2024 NY Slip Op 31042(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Arauz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.
101 A.D.3d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Torres v. New York City Health & hospitals Corp.
101 A.D.3d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
78 A.D.3d 538, 911 N.Y.S.2d 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-jacobi-medical-center-nyappdiv-2010.